Comments on: EFF on why artists should support the Orphan Works proposalhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html
Brain candy for Happy MutantsMon, 15 Sep 2014 23:11:17 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: godfathersoulhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193543
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193543I would have to agree with the above statements about “reasonable compensation”. In, I think, every artists experience, it is the user (not the artist) and a court who determines what that is.

While it might seem all well and good to have copyrights and a central repository and all, do you know how much it costs to copyright something? Upwards of $250. Let’s see… if I officially copyright every image i’ve ever created… Maybe I ought to open one of these registration repositories. Looks like good money.

The point is, that no artist can afford to copyright every work they have so that option is out and unless i am proven wrong I think “Reasonable Compensation” is a scam.

This is a good start but still seems to favor businesses over the artists whose work they hope to use and that seems an ill-proportioned plan.

]]>By: GregLondonhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193549
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193549do you know how much it costs to copyright something? Upwards of $250.

]]>By: ccommonshttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193550
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193550Agree wholeheartedly with Mike. Both versions of this bill have serious problems. On the issue of reasonable compensation, keep in mind that NO compensation will be paid to copyright owners when the use was by a church or educational institution. So what happens when my photograph is used by some religious organization that I never would have granted permission to? At best, the court can tell them to stop the use. UNLESS of course, they have begun using my work in a derivative work…in that case, the court cannnot even stop them. I receive no compensation and the use continues…all by an organization that I never would have granted permission to to begin with.

Public databases…I can almost guarantee that there will be a fee to put your works into them and artists will not be able to afford that. Other than these databases, if a visual work has no copyright information on it, there is really on other way to search for the owner. It will become a necessary thing for artists to include their work in them.

Orphan works should see the light of day, but not under either of these bills.

Maybe Lessig is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or is the bill flawed enough that we should hold out for a better orphan works bill? I’m still inclined to support the bill if both the EFF and PK support it, but Lessig’s concerns are worth taking into account.

There are many issues with the law as proposedâ€¦mainly it just further creates hardship and litigationâ€¦â€¦.the only reason it wonâ€™t overwhelm the Fed Court system is that it will not be financially feasible to pursue protection of the copyrights, because the bill guts any damages and the attorney fees. As it stands now it will promote USE FIRST, and ONLY AK FOR PERMISSION if you get caught.

The only true way to slow the creation of Orphans issue is MANDATORY ATTRIBUTION, since our laws lack any moral rights, and Morals canâ€™t be legislated to any effect. At least with Attribution, and google the living Artist will be able to be found. As Tammy indicates in her letter to congress the current proposal will only create further morass.

I come from an experience that is real. I am in year 3 of a copyright litigation that, my legal bill now exceeds $500,000.00 USD.

US copyright laws currently lack â€œMORAL RIGHTSâ€â€¦. before any â€œORPHAN WORKS LAWâ€ should be considered the copyright laws need to address at least â€œMandatory Attributionâ€ bc I donâ€™t think that moral rights can be enforced by law.

My case involves thousands of images that were marked with my â€œCMIâ€ embedded into each and every image, with metadataâ€¦.client removed said data, and then licensed my images to hundreds of third parties who then licensed my images to thousands of additional third parties under their â€œAffiliate Marketing Programsâ€

So if you are an artist and are concerned with your artwork then you better be concerned with this proposed legislation, and the impacts it will have on your ability to sustain yourself.

As an aside, although I was the copyright owner, I was the defendant in this lawsuit. I was forced to incur $500,000.00 USD in legal fees to protect my copyrights. As a result I now have thousands of images being used by thousands of people whom are all using my images to make moneyâ€¦.they have not paid one red cent for these assetsâ€¦I can not pursue each and every one of themâ€¦.and those that I do can claim as a defense that the work is either in public domain or an orphaned work, or that it was an innocent infringement.

How many readers have the kind of USD it take to protect your copyrights, even under the laws as they now stand? If the orphan works law passes as now proposed it will cost more to protect your rights both in real dollars and in your personal time, and emotions.

Propet USA v. Lloyd Shugart WD WA. Federal Court

Lloyd Shugart

]]>By: shoontzhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193817
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193817It’s not about if this is a good bill or even if there could be a better one. The question is; should there really be an “orphaned” bill at all?

Referring to work as “orphaned” is a huge mistake. Work that’s been stolen, copied, scanned, posted, reposted and then finally reused should probably be considered kidnaped.

This bill was drafted so people could make money easily and cheaply off of others hard work, and it’s a little naive to think that drafters had artists’ best interests in mind.

]]>By: LBhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193568
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193568Isn’t Lessig opposed to this version of the bill?

]]>By: JEMhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-194080
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-194080It should be my right as an illustrator to choose who I work for. I would never say yes to an offer from the Church of Scientology, or the Catholic church for that matter, but under this bill, I could be denied the right to say no.

Also, registering every sketch, every version, and every final I create would cost a gazillion dollars- just think of how much one sketch session in the subway could cost!

]]>By: shoontzhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193574
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193574Seriously? I love this Blog, but this is a terrible, TERRIBLE bill for visual artists. I’m actually a little surprised that Boingboing (which usually seems so artist friendly) would link to an article championing this proposal.

You guys should really do a follow up, and ask Coop and all the other artists you link to what they think about this. You should also contact Trevor Brown who was recently boned by the band Crystal Castles . I’m sure he’d have a story or two about:

“second author to negotiate with that owner in good faith to determine reasonable compensation for the use”

I don’t think this legislation is the right answer, but I’ll damned if I’ve got a better solution.

On one hand, if you’re a independent content producer you’ll want fair market compensation for the sale of your artistic integrity to big pharm for its latest impotency commercial. On the other hand, if you’re making derivative works for sale you don’t want to get raked over coals when the obnoxious nephew of some long dead writer needs to fund his coke habit.

Anyway, there are some things the law gets right: to use an orphaned work you have to mark it as such, and you have to register it in a central database.

]]>By: clueless in brooklynhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193578
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193578very bad for visual artists, especially those who spend a ton to make it and sell few and far between. paying for rights that you once immediately had just for maing it in no way benefits visual artists. how much will it cost to copyright just the catalog of images i creat in one year alone.. more than i would spend to create the work itself.
]]>By: aimlesshttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193586
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193586Neither the house nor the senate bill is specific enough for me to trust either. What is a diligent search? What’s reasonable compensations? And who is going to reasonably compensate me when I have to pay for a lawyer to represent me? This legislation opens up too many opportunities for large companies to screw artists over. I support actual orphaned works being opened up to institutions, or even the private consumer, but I don’t think these bills protect artists who can still be located.
]]>By: BDewhirsthttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-194103
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-194103Bah… copyright is theft.

Nobody, not even artists, has a right to a business model which never changes.

]]>By: artbothttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193602
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193602I’m getting sick of all the apologist articles imploring people to “stop whining and read the bill – it’s not so bad”. No, in it’s current form and language, it is bad for artists.

“…must put diligent effort into searching for the owner of the copyright in the work, based in part on best practices to be outlined by the Registrar of Copyright…” –

“The copyright owner can sue them under the current rules and potentially obtain statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work” –

If you can even afford a lawyer to take the case.

“Congress also plans to certify searchable databases…”

Congress-certified (?) privately-owned copyright databases? That sounds wonderful. I bet they will do a splendid job with that.

]]>By: shoontzhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-194116
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-194116“The mediocre will have to find another line of work that actually benefits society.”

Ha, ha, ha! Like stealing other artists work? If this bill goes through stealing work will be big business. Personally I’d rather see more people creating.

I don’t know which artists you’ve been listening to about this Anonymous, but all the people I’ve heard speak out against this bill are very original, very competent artists. Artists who have already had work stolen overseas, and are simply afraid of people doing the same here with the law backing the thieves up.

It’s not up to you or I to decide if an artist is talented enough to make a living â€” it’s up to the marketplace. A bill like this would decimate that marketplace for artists, and the first to feel the pinch would be the lovely, exciting fringe creators out there.

People who make boring, generic work are usually pretty well established and would be able to weather a lawsuit or two no problem. It’s the little Joe/Jill indy-comic crowd that’s going to get screwed.

It’s legalized plagiarism, and I don’t know any writers or musicians who would allow a bill like this to pass. Art something that by it’s very nature is nonessential. So bottom line, stealing it isn’t going to save any lives.

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?s=2&pg=1 May 20th, 2008 5:30 pm Link I am a photographer who has worked for over 40 years. To a large extent, my retirement and estate will consist of the value of my copyrighted archives. The current proposals for the resolution of the “Orphan Works” problem will no doubt destroy much of the value of my work, since images can so easily be taken off the Internet, stripped of identification and distributed. This has happened to me. One image, which came to be important in the 2004 presidential campaign had been taken in 1970. It was stripped of copyright information and published over 400 times on the web. It was intentionally “orphaned”. Many infringers did not even strip the copyright, they published it without permission or a license and claimed I shouldn’t complain. “It is free publicity.” My family doesn’t eat publicity. The bill is a disaster for all intellectual property workers. If the government can list sex offenders and campaign contributors on the Internet, they should be able to manage copyright. â€” Leif Skoogfors, Philadelphia, PA Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
#
It was a lonely search. by Lloyd Shugart on Jun 3rd, 2008 @ 10:56am

According to Marilyn Henry, author of Confronting the Perpetrators: A History of the Claims Conference, the process of reclaiming looted art has always been one of the most prickly of all Holocaust restitution issues.

“Countless Nazi victims spent decades trying to find artworks that once belonged to their families. It was a lonely search. The burden was on the victim to find what had been taken, to prove it belonged to him and to convince whoever had it to give it back,” she says from her home in New York.

“Imagine looking for a needle in a haystack, finding the needle, and being told by the haystack owner that you had to prove you owned the needle before the war, and then convince him that he should return the needle to you.”

We all know of “churches” and “schools” that are fronts for people making money. And/or espouse beliefs that the artist disagrees with. Yet this bill provides no way for an artist to simply prevent such organizations from using their work.

Instead, how about this simple rule:

If you want to use something you didn’t create, you can’t use it until you find the artist and reach an agreement.

If you can’t find the artist, then you can’t use it.

If you can’t reach an agreement with the artist, then you can’t use it.

Yet this bill provides no way for an artist to simply prevent such organizations from using their work.

Bluemartin, arguably that shouldn’t be a goal of US copyright law. The Constitution gives our government the right to grant creators monopolies over their works in order to promote the sciences and arts. In other words, granting artists control over their work is not an end, but the means towards the end of having more art around.

Allowing artists to veto derivative uses of their art strikes me as a case where the constitutional principle behind copyright is being turned against itself.

]]>By: Anonymoushttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193960
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193960I’ve read a number of screeds against this law, and all of them have two things in common:

1. Near-complete ignorance about existing copyright law. Most of the stuff that sounds vague and hard-to-enforce is already the law for non-registered works.

2. Opposition, sometimes openly stated, to the very idea of orphan works — or, for that matter, a public domain. They aren’t so much afraid of their work being stolen as they are of millions of images and illustrations being unlocked and available for publishers and other artists to use. Some artists fret that they won’t be able to make a living doing generic illustrations and stock images because they cannot compete with free. This is true, and exactly the point of the law. It isn’t a good idea to force everyone to pay an inventor to come up with the wheel when we already have perfectly good ones. The more generic or stock imagery that makes it into the public domain, the more advancement in the arts we should see. People have to do something different and unique. The mediocre will have to find another line of work that actually benefits society.

It’s not long, so whatever your opinion is, go an read it. As Cory says, there’s so much FUD about this that the only way to get the actual truth is to read the actual bill.

Firstly: thereâ€™s only a limitation on damages if the defendant proves they performed and documented a qualifying search and was unable to locate & identify an owner (amongst several other conditions they must also meet). Then, and only then, does the whole “Reasonable Compensation” possibly take effect. The onus is on the defendant to prove they did a diligent and documented search, otherwise thereâ€™s no limitation on damages and you can claim punitive and legal fees.

If this is true, is anything really changing too drastically from how it stands at the moment? If you already have to register to obtain proper protection and this bill’s overall effect will be to make this registration cheaper, quicker and easier, as well as making searching for copyrighted works cheaper, quicker and easier â€“ thereby making the ‘I couldn’t find it’ argument much harder â€“ then isn’t this a good thing?

It seems to do a good job of clearing up misconceptions. I hope everyone can stop freaking out now ;-)

]]>By: noenhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193742
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193742“the only way to get the actual truth is to read the actual bill.”

Unfortunately Congress has a nasty habit of inserting amendments at the last minute. Also, once the house and senate pass legislation if there are any differences in the bill they form a committee to hash out the differences. This can also substantially change the character of a bill. There is really no way to know what impact this bill will have until after it is passed. Probably not even then.

]]>By: skyfallerhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193747
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193747Wow, I hadn’t seen Lessig’s opposition… time to go back and read that bill again! I guess there are still some problems with the bill even once the misconceptions are cleared up :/
]]>By: Churchhttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193493
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193493Meh. Good on them, and all, but this is just a bandaid on the problem. We used to have a database of copyrighted works. It was called the copyright office.

We really need to just kick the rent-steaders out of the commons.

]]>By: spacedoghttp://boingboing.net/2008/05/22/eff-on-why-artists-s.html#comment-193511
Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000#comment-193511My only concern is how is “reasonable compensation” determined? In my experience the value of a copyrighted work can have very different “reasonable” values depending on who you ask. In these days of $1 royalty free stock art. It seems that a case could be made that my image is worth far less than I would have ever agreed to license it for had I been contacted beforehand.

As a copyright holder I have the right to charge egregious fees if I wish to. I might not sell any images that way but it is my right. Under this proposal a company could use my image without permission, and I am due reasonable compensation. So who determines what is reasonable? Is it based on the rates I would normally charge? What if someone considers my standard rate unreasonable?

I am not saying that the Orphan Works proposal is bad but I would love some further legal clarification as to how reasonable is determined before I support it.